{"id":5554,"date":"2025-07-12T16:32:56","date_gmt":"2025-07-12T22:32:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/?p=5554"},"modified":"2025-07-12T16:32:56","modified_gmt":"2025-07-12T22:32:56","slug":"sufism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/?p=5554","title":{"rendered":"Sufism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Sufism is a loaded term. It can evoke a wide spectrum of emotions in us, depending on our ideological orientations. While the term itself was not coined by the Prophet \ufdfa or even the Companions, the discipline of knowledge that addresses the actions of the heart and purification of the soul has come to be referred to by many scholars as \u2018ta\u1e63awwuf.\u2019<\/em> Ta\u1e63awwuf <\/em>and Sufism became names not only for the science, but its referents and subject matter: the actions of the heart and the inner states. How could this be a subject of controversy with conflicting reports about it from the major scholars? This has to do with the history and evolution of the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the time of the Companions, there was seamless harmony between knowledge and practice, the exterior and the interior, and rituals and spirituality. After their time, a gulf started to form between these concepts, where many people became overindulgent in the pleasures of this life and heedless about their hearts and inner states due to the prosperity enjoyed by Muslims of the successive generations and the relative fading of the light of revelation. Even some scholars were more attentive to intellectual resourcefulness and legal technicality than to spirituality. As a response to this, some of the earlier pious predecessors started to emphasize concepts they felt were endangered. The emphasis here was on asceticism and the purification of the soul. The earlier masters were compliant with the Shari\u2018ah<\/em>. However, as time went by, many claimants of ta\u1e63awwuf <\/em>added many innovations to their practice; more perilously, many adopted concepts that were imported from other religions and philosophies, such as existential union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deviations that ensued may have had earlier unintended triggers. For example, because the earlier masters wanted to highlight the inadequacy of knowledge without commitment and practice, some later began to undermine the epistemic value of the Revelation in favor of correct but abused concepts like dhawq<\/em> (taste) and ilh\u00e2m<\/em> (inspiration). Some even created a dichotomy between the Shari\u2018ah<\/em> (scriptural instructions) acquired through learning and the \u1e25aqeeqah<\/em> (reality) captured by the hearts of the \u2018\u00e2rifeen<\/em> (knowers). This would result into a cultish attitude among many seekers, making their sheikhs\u2019 findings the standard of truth. Because the earlier masters wanted to highlight the oneness of God and His absolute control, some later undermined the agency of humans, which would lead some to conflate Allah\u2019s universal decrees with His legal commands. This would ultimately result in indifference, pacifism, and antinomianism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of these deviations and others, it is not uncommon to find the dispraise of Sufis in the discourse of the greatest scholars, starting with no less than Imam ash-Sh\u00e2fi\u2018i and some of his contemporaries who did not even witness the worst innovations or heresies yet to be propagated. Other scholars looked at the pure beginnings and were impressed by the devotion and manners of many masters and seekers, so they followed them; some exaggerated in their praise and some were even unable to see their flaws and attempted to justify them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did the scholars who dispraised them mean, and what is the right stance? I believe that the dispraise of some scholars and the praise of others need to be contextualized. While some issues may be controversial among the scholars themselves, most are not. The praise and dispraise were both valid, but they pertained to different iterations of ta\u1e63awwuf<\/em>. A most balanced synthesis can be found in these words of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be bestow mercy on him):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the disagreements over their ijtih\u00e2ds<\/em>, people disagreed over their paths. A group condemned Sufism and said they are innovators who departed from the Sunnah. This was reported from many imams whose statements in this regard are known. A group of fuqah\u00e2\u2019<\/em> and the scholars of kal\u00e2m<\/em> (speculative theology) followed them in this opinion. Another group exaggerated in their praise and claimed they are the best of all creations and the most complete in virtue after the prophets. And the two extremes in judging these matters are blameworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The correct position is that they excel in obedience towards Allah, as others excel. Some of them are among the vanguard, congruent with their effort, and some are average among the people of the right hand (ahl al-yameen<\/em>). In both groups, there are those who commit errors in their ijtih\u00e2d<\/em>; some repent while others do not. Also, of those who claim to be of them are those who transgress themselves and disobey their Lord. And some of the innovators and blasphemous groups have attached themselves to them. The verifying scholars of the Sufis, however, do not recognize these groups and individuals to be of them. Al-\u1e24all\u00e2j, for example, was rejected and called out of the path by the majority of the sheikhs, such as al-Junayd ibn Muhammad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad\u00ad, the master of the assembly (sayyid a\u1e6d-\u1e6d\u00e2\u2019ifah)<\/em>, and others, as reported by Sheikh Abu \u2018Abdir-Ra\u1e25m\u00e2n as-Sulamiy in his \u1e6cabaq\u00e2t a\u1e63-\u1e62oofiyah<\/em> and as al-\u1e24\u00e2fidh Abu Bakr al-Kha\u1e6deeb mentioned in T\u00e2reekh Baghd\u00e2d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the original ta\u1e63awwuf<\/em>. Then, after that it split up into groups and the Sufis became of three strands: \u1e63oofiyat al-\u1e25aq\u00e2\u2019iq<\/em> (realities), \u1e63oofiyat al-arz\u00e2q<\/em> (monetary gains), and \u1e63oofiyat ar-rasm <\/em>(formalities). As to the \u1e63oofiyat al-\u1e25aq\u00e2\u2019iq, <\/em>they are the ones we have described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the \u1e63oofiyat al-arz\u00e2q<\/em>, they are the ones who had endowments set up for them, such as the khanqahs<\/em>. They are not necessarily of the people of the knowledge of realities (\u1e25aq\u00e2\u2019iq<\/em>), for that is mighty and rare. The majority of the people of \u1e25aq\u00e2\u2019iq<\/em> are not known to abide in the khanqahs<\/em>. However, there are three prerequisites [for them to deserve sustenance from the endowments]: the first is shar<\/em>\u2018<\/em>i<\/em> integrity in that they fulfil the obligatory acts and abstain from the prohibitions; the second is adhering to the etiquettes (\u00e2d\u00e2b<\/em>) of the people of the path most of the time, and these are the etiquettes of Shari\u2018ah<\/em>. As for the fabricated and innovated etiquettes, they do not matter; and the third is that they do not hoard any excesses of worldly material. As to he who hoards wealth or does not have praiseworthy manners and does not adhere to the shar<\/em>\u2018<\/em>i<\/em> etiquettes or is a f\u00e2siq<\/em>, then he is not deserving of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for \u1e63oofiyat ar-rasm <\/em>(formalities), they are limited to the attire and fabricated etiquettes, etc. Their likeness among the Sufis is the likeness of those who merely wear the attire of the people of knowledge and the people of jihad and imitate some of their speech and actions in a way that makes the one who does not know their reality assume that they are of them, but they are not. (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo\u2018 al-Fat\u00e2w\u00e2<\/em>, 11:17-20)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What should we do, then, with a legacy that is filled with pearls and jewels mixed with rocks and sometimes scorpions and snakes? Three questions will need to be answered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first is whether we can afford not<\/em> to talk about spirituality, the inner states, the actions of the heart, manners and etiquettes, etc.? The answer to this is a resounding \u201cNo\u201d\u2014by agreement. It is also hoped that we all agree on the prime importance of putting more emphasis on these aspects of religiosity. It seems that the contemporary \u201cIslamic Awakening\u201d suffers a great deal because of insufficient emphasis on these core teachings of Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is whether we can afford to find all of what we need of these teachings away from the heritage of the masters who are identified as Sufis? The answer to this is not as clear as that to the first question, because it may be said that the four Imams and their contemporaries who were not identified as Sufis and their predecessors and followers have not ignored the inner states as some may think. Despite that, it is still clear to me that we cannot afford to ignore the heritage of the greatest and purest of the earlier masters, such as Ma\u2018roof al-Karkhi, Sariy as-Saqa\u1e6di, Abu al-Q\u00e2sim al-Junayd, Abu Sulaym\u00e2n ad-Dar\u00e2ni, Sahl al-Tustari, and their likes, or even al-Harawi, al-Jeel\u00e2ni, Abu al-Bay\u00e2n, Abu Madyan, Ibn \u2018A\u1e6d\u00e2\u2019, and their likes. Can you imagine Mad\u00e2rij as-S\u00e2likeen<\/em> purged of their wisdom?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third is whether we need to call this discipline or path Sufism or ta\u1e63awwuf<\/em>? The answer to this is even less clear than the answer to the second question. The reason for its unclarity goes back to several factors, foremost among them is that this term was not coined by the Prophet \ufdfa or his Companions; in fact, we do not even know who coined it and what it is derived from, despite the many theories in this respect. Secondly, the term tazkiyah<\/em> is what Allah used in the Qur\u2019an to refer to the purification of the soul; why should we not, then, use the Qur\u2019anic term? Thirdly, why should we use a term that does not have an agreed-upon standard definition and which may be used to refer to utterly heretical concepts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My answer to this is multifold. First, I prefer the use of the Qur\u2019anic term \u2018tazkiyah.\u2019<\/em> Second, I believe (as stated by the masters of the path) that one should never call oneself a Sufi, because this is like calling oneself pious or devout. Third, I still believe that we should remove the sensitivity against the word ta\u1e63awwuf <\/em>because it is irrational to wage a war against a term that could mean various things. Waging a war against the term will also cause novices aversion to the valuable heritage of those who were identified as Sufis. Finally, the aversion of the people of fiqh<\/em> and Hadith to the use of the term will allow ignorant and blasphemous groups to hijack it and take uncontested ownership of it. This means they will be the spokespersons of a legacy that is integral to our deen<\/em> and entrenched in our heritage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proper approach to ta\u1e63awwuf<\/em> is, then, a loving yet critical examination of its heritage. I argue that this was the true Taymiyyan approach. The scholarly community needs to embrace the Sufi legacy and transfuse it with emphasis on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. strict adherence to the Revelation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. prioritizing the understanding and practice of the first community<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. prioritizing clarity vs. symbolism (al-Junayd vs. al-Kharr\u00e2z; may Allah have mercy on them)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. leaving out that which causes doubt for that which causes no doubt<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. calling out departures from the path of the upright mashayikh<\/em> (Ahl al-Istiq\u00e2mah)<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    \u0648\u0635\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0645\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0648\u0627\u0644\u062d\u0645\u062f \u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0631\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0627\u0644\u0645\u064a\u0646<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Sufism is a loaded term. It can evoke a wide spectrum of emotions in us, depending on our ideological orientations. While the term itself was not coined by the Prophet \ufdfa or even the Companions, the discipline of knowledge that addresses the actions of the heart and purification of the soul has come to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[64,67],"tags":[461,529,530,528,455,429],"class_list":["post-5554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-belief","category-islamic-ideology-and-thought","tag-bida","tag-salfism","tag-sufism","tag-suluk","tag-sunnah","tag-sunni"],"views":135,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5554"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5554"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5555,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5554\/revisions\/5555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drhatemalhaj.com\/qa\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}